Of course they were fertilized just for the research, but Christians think that is wrong, and so do I, and so do I. Also, it is not at all clear the embryonic stem cells have a better potential of curing any disease compared to adult stem cells. The word "potentially" is the key in your last sentence...adult stem cells could "potentially" do the exact same thing. And just because something can save lives does not automatically make it morally acceptable, we must still know where to draw the line. Of course this is not a cut and dry issue and very persuasive arguments can be made by both sides.You should read more about the science before you hop on the bandwagon of one side or another. I do not disagree with the use of embryonic stem cells on religious grounds, but I still believe it is wrong to fertilize human embryos for research when there are alternatives.
@Brian: "3 aborted fetuses on life support'"..? if they are on life support they are not fetuses, they are babies. and if they were aborted, they are dead, unless the abortion failed. Your hypothetical question makes no sense. You are asking if we would save 3 babies on life support or a 5-yr old girl???? I dont know, would you save your mom or your dad? Not a very intelligent example....and besides, the abortion argument isnt about saving one life at the expense of a fetus...it is about aborting fetuses because some woman was irresponsible and got pregnant bus doesnt want to deal with the consequences of it. Of couse rape and life-or-death situations may be exceptions, but your example has nothing to do with the real argument.